People v. Allen
| Decision Date | 27 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 31741,31741 |
| Citation | 407 Ill. 596,96 N.E.2d 446 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ALLEN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Richard H. Devine, and John A. McIntyre, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen., and John S. Boyle, state's Atty. of Chicago (John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega, Arthur F. Manning, and John V. Schaffenegger, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Maurice Allen, was tried before a jury in the criminal court of Cook County and convicted of the crime of receiving stolen property. He has sued out a writ of error to review the record of his conviction.
On the night of September 22, 1948, Arthur Philbrick parked his automobile on the street near his home at 806 Ashland Avenue, in the city of Chicago. At seven o'clock the next morning the car was gone from the place where it had been parked the previous night. The theft was immediately reported to the Marquette Police Station. The automobile was a new Mercury which had been recently purchased for the sum of $3150. The owner testified that he next saw his automobile about four months later in the auto pound after it had been recovered by the police. At that time the car had been stripped, and the motor, tires, radio, and upholstery had been removed.
Plaintiff in error urges three grounds for reversal of his judgment of conviction: (1) The court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence concerning the finding of the automobile by police officers in a private garage which had been rented by plaintiff in error; (2) the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the automobile had been stolen by a person other than plaintiff in error, and (3) the court made prejudicial remarks in the presence of the jury, during the course of the closing arguments being made by counsel for plaintiff in error.
Plaintiff in error's first contention is based on the fact that officers entered the private garage in which the Mercury automobile was situated, without first obtaining a search warrant. It is contended that this is an unreasonable search of a private building contrary to the guarantees of the State and Federal constitutions. The evidence discloses that plaintiff in error was engaged in doing business, with other parties, under the firm name of A & B Auto Sales, at 1317 South Oakley Avenue, in the city of Chicago. About three months prior to the time the automobile in question was stolen plaintiff in error rented a garage at 1310 South Talman Street, from one Richard Williams. This garage was large enough to accommodate two automobiles and was situated in the rear of a small apartment building owned by Williams.
Plaintiff in error told the police officers that he rented this garage and used it to store parts and accessories in connection with the A & B Auto Sales business which was in the same neighborhood. The A & B Auto Sales was licensed by the State of Illinois to deal in used cars. The Uniform Motor Vehicle Anti-Theft Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1949, chap. 95 1/2, sec. 12, par. 85, provides that any person engaged in the business of buying, selling, and dealing in used motor vehicles or parts or accessories shall require a license. Section 14, par. 87, of the same act provides that such a licensee, as a condition of his license, shall be deemed to have granted authority to any peace officer to examine such records, any motor vehicles, or parts or accessories at his place of business at any reasonable time during the day or night.
The trial court held a preliminary hearing, out of the presence of the jury, to ascertain the facts and circumstances surrounding the search of the garage in question by police officers. The evidence taken at this hearing reveals that the officers entered the garage with the permission of Williams, the owner, who accompanied them into the building. Plaintiff in error testified that two other persons, besides himself, had access to the rented garage by the use of a second key. He denied having anything to do with the Mercury car. The used-car license for the A & B Auto Sales for the year 1948 was received in evidence. The constitutional prohibition against searches and seizures does not extend to all searches and seizures but is intended only as a guard and shield against unreasonable ones. The purpose of the provisions of the Uniform Motor Vehicle Anti-Theft Act was to facilitate the discovery and prevention of thefts of automobiles. Examination of the premises occupied by plaintiff in error in the business for which a license had been issued was not an unreasonable search. People v. Levy, 370 Ill. 82, 17 N.E.2d 967. The court did not err in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Bahta
...§ 101 depending upon whether the charge was for retaining stolen property or receiving and concealing stolen property); People v. Allen, 96 N.E.2d 446 (Ill. 1950) (noting that a conviction for receiving stolen property requires proof that the receiver knew the property was stolen at the tim......
-
In re Bahta
...§ 101 depending upon whether the charge was for retaining stolen property or receiving and concealing stolen property); People v. Allen, 96 N.E.2d 446 (Ill. 1950) (noting that a conviction for receiving stolen property requires proof that the receiver knew the property was stolen at the tim......
-
DeSeno v. Becker
... ... 681, 557 N.E.2d 451 (1990) (generally, procedural rules are applied retroactively whereas substantive rules are not); People v. Ridens, 59 Ill.2d 362, 380-81, 321 N.E.2d 264, 273-74 (1974) (retroactive application of state-court construction of a criminal statute deprives ... ...
-
State v. Thibodeau
...property. Niece v. Commonwealth, 1948, 307 Ky. 760, 212 S.W.2d 291; State v. Callaway, 1954, 72 Wyo. 509, 267 P.2d 970; People v. Allen, 1950, 407 Ill. 596, 96 N.E.2d 446. Nor is it necessary to allege the name of the person from whom the defendant received it. Kirby v. United States, 1899,......